To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Next week:
The Lum berjack
features the
NPPA photo
contest winners.
Viewpoint
ASNAU elections
methods questioned
by concerned
candidate.
Las Vegas
Scramble
Weekend weather
MOKIJf CMNKI|f MM Win­dy,
says the National
Weather Service. Chance
Wof ivhllVoMmwf l t# IMIV Bahirdiv
or Sunday. Highs In the
50a and overnight Iowa In
the 30s.
Sedona conditions
sndV sbrrlaeebzlye. Hcilgohusd Ilnn ethees 4lo0we. 70s end lows In the
A student newspaper serving the Morthern Arizona Community, Flagstaff
Hughes hears gripes
about faculty system
By Kathy Burkel,
Bob Romantic.
Responding in part to
criticism that the universi­ty
administration had not
moved as rapidly as it
might in developing a
system of faculty gover­nance,
NAU President
Eugene M. Hughes ad­dressed
the faculty Friday
afternoon.
Prior to Hughes’ ad­dress,
Sharon Crowley,
Chairperson of the Faculty
Senate, said. “ I have great
respect for President
Hughes but he and 1 dis­agree
on the term, faculty
governance."
She said the faculty has
no power under the
existing constitution for
two reasons. One is that
the faculty does not have a
representative on the
board of regents and must
rely on students to get in­formation.
The other is
that the cen tral ad­ministration
channels in­formation
to the faculty.
Crowley said that the
faculty senate submitted a
proposal to amend certain
portions of the constitution
in January. Three months
have passed, and she said
the senate has not heard
anything from Hughes yet
on that proposal.
"The faculty must have
the first and last words on
academic decisions,” she
said.
Talented faculty don’t
run for the senate, she
added, because they
realize it is an organization
of futility and has no say.
Many faculty members
in the audience responded
to Crowley’s remarks with
a standing ovation.
Hughes did not respond
directly to Crowley’s com­ments,
saying that his role
as a university president
was in fact limited by the
legislature and the Arizona
Board of Regents.
“ I also know that this has
been a difficult year
primarily because of the
many challenges facing us
as an institution and
because of the new direc­tion
that we are taking in
response to these
challenges,” he said.
Hughes then read from a
prepared statement which
focused upon six issues
which he believed were
critical to the future of
NAU and education in
Arizona.
The first issue he ad­dressed
was lib era l
studies.
“ We finally have a
program representing a
m a jo r ity of fa c u lty
opinions and one which 1
am convinced will work,”
he said.
Hughes added that he has
received a number of
proposals to include
courses and disciplines
that have been left out of
the program, but that he
prefers to let the program
work as prescribed.
Hughes then addressed
the new faculty constitu­tion.
Under the new constitu­tion,
the president is in­volved
in the senate as an
ex-officio member rather
than a presiding officer.
Hughes said he supports
this change.
Hughes said he was un­able
to provide the faculty
with good news concerning
his third topic, the budget,
as he would have liked.
‘i t appears that we will
have no merit salary in­creases
for 1983-84,” he
said, “ and the cost of living
increases will not be
available until January 1,
1984. if then.”
Hughes then honored
members of the faculty
who were promoted and
promised that the pay in­creases
that go along with
these promotions will be
administered when funds
are available.
R egarding Hughes'
fourth concern, athletics at
NAU, he said he favors
creating a new National
C o lle g ia te A th le tic
Association-type organiza­tion
for institutions such as
NAU that “ will enable us
to utilize some cost-saving
measures and restore
some degree of sanity to in­tercollegiate
athletics.”
The creation of a new
organization would prevent
schools from making
decisions such as the one
NAU is currently con­sidering
regarding drop­ping
the wrestling program
and replacing it with golf.
Hughes’ fifth topic con­cerned
minority affairs.
“ Our faculty will need to
involve themselves more
directly in the recruitment
and retention of minority
students,” he said.
“ A lre a d y , I have
requested a faculty-staff
group to begin work on the
compilation of data and
will soon appoint a com­mittee
to analyze these
data and p rep are a
recommendation outlining
a s p e c ific program
designed to improve our
minority student profile.”
Hughes said he has taken
the first step regarding the
hiring of minority faculty
by providing the chairs and
deans with prepared equal
opportunity affirmative ac­tion
guidelines for the
faculty f administrative
recruitment and hiring.
His last concern was the
matter of admissions into
NAU.
Hughes said he does not
think NAU should have the
same requirements as
those of Arizona State
University or the Universi­ty
of Arizona because it is a
small university in which
students can retain their
individual identity and
work w ith fa c u lty
members on a one-to-one
basis.
“ NAU can join ASU or U
of A, or NAU can be
different and admit the stu­dent
under different ad­missions
requirements
that would not be lower but
in fact could be higher than
those we have today,”
Hughes said.
“ I am not proposing ad­mitting
any student who is
not admissable at the pre­sent
time. I do not propose
lowering our admission
standards The only ques­tion
is whether we should
raise them to levels which
w ill e ffe c tiv e ly deny
students the opportunity of
r e c e iv in g an N A U
education.”
Hughes said the
legislature is considering
requiring universities to
carry a 22 to one ratio
between faculty and
students. If approved right
now, this proposal would
force NAU to reduce its
faculty by nearly 50
positions.
Hughes said that he has
made a commitment to
every Arizona student in
the top 10 percent of their
graduating class to attend
NAU with a four-year tui­tion
scholarship in order to
raise the academic quality
of the entering freshman
class. He also made the
same commitment to the
top junior student in every
Arizona high school.
Hughes concluded by
asking the faculty for its
understanding and trust as
NAU faced the challenges
ahead. ‘ ‘We face some
tough problems with no
easy solutions ... I will
listen to you, weigh the op­tions
and with all the
wisdom I can muster,
make the decisions which I
believe will be in the best
interests of the univer­sity.”
Meredith Hebden/The Lumberjack On nuclear MADness
The father of the H-bomb, Edward
Teller, placated both breadmakers and
bomb builders Thursday, in a speech
titled “Secrecy and Nuclear Alchemy.”
“Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)
has kept the peace, but It can’t keep the
peace indefinitely on this basis. Few
people can accept a balance of terror,"
he said. Teller’s presentation, spon­sored
by the honors program and the
chemistry department, attracted a
diverse audience that filled the
chemistry building auditorium.
M e rit How do evaluations affect promotions and tenure
E d itor s n ote: The
following is third in a
series offering an in-depth
look at the role of student
evaluations in the overall
NAU faculty evaluation
process. Because of time
and space demands, the
series will be extended to
four parts, the last two
examing how student
evaluations relate — or do
not — to administrative
decision-making about
faculty promotions, tenure
and merit pay.
By Irma Velasco
Contributing Reporter
Given that student
evaluations measure only
the teaching performance
r
component of overall facul­ty
evaluation, just how do
administrators use them
when making retention,
promotion, tenure and
merit pay raise decisions?
Faculty evaluation in­volves
a process of
exam ining a facu lty
member’ s yearly con­tributions
in teaching per­formance,
scholarship and
research, and professional
service, said Academic
Affairs Vice President
Joseph W. Cox.
Questions immediately
arise as to how these
criteria should be weighted
year to year, instructor to
instructor, in a university
Pardon our
transition issDuoen ’ot fb et hael arLmuemdb eifr jtahciks etyqpueipsemtteinntg, and computing ltohoek s different, because The new equipment, Lansetx tw iseseukee nwdi ll,o utoro .o ld wish oiochs odfe tbhuet sm tohsits asduvmamnceerd. tbyrpokees etdtoiwngn aenqdu ipcamuesendt sysBteecmaus saev oaifl athbele p, roblems panic in the office. Luckily, we’we had, we are unable nFelwasgpasptearf, f'Ts he Adriasoilnys ctoo npterisnt tw tinhne erNsP ePnAd thpeh osteo- rDeusUcuye . STuhne, Scoanm per odtou ctoiounr cSotnerdn p’so rste r*1ie Ss teapnh Nena uMtialurks staff anisd gtyivpienng euttsi nai haonudr vsB. forthe e wwointt tfanp pt "
traditionally known as a
"teaching institution.”
A Faculty Evaluation
Council subcommittee
d ra fte d a student
evaluations report last
Stay addressing this issue.
“ The evaluation of
teaching must be part of an
overall system which
possesses, also, an ap­propriate
process for
evaluating research and
service. A specific com­mitment
to their relative
weighting within the total
evaluation process must
occur,” the report stated
Cox acknowledged the
need for flexible weighting
of the criteria
“ With each faculty
member the balance is
different. We’ve got to
have a reward system that
takes this into account, ’ ’ he
said.
The weighting process,
h o w ever, cannot be
routinized, or subjected to
a formula. Cox said. These
decisions belong largely to
college deans, who know
the key d iffe r e n c e s
between departments.
“ A dean will make dis­tinctions
in his or her own
thinking about different
departments based on the
m ission of those
departments,” Cox said.
Arts and Sciences Dean
Charles E. Little, for
example, would consider
the biology department,
w ith its b ach elors,
masters and doctoral
programs, different from
the smaller philosophy or
m odern lan gu ages
departments.
Weighting of the three
evaluative criteria aside,
questions also arise about
the two-fold purpose of the
student evaluations.
Student evaluations
provide instructors with
students’ feedback on their
teaching performance, but
are used also by ad­ministrators
to make
decisions about retention,
promotion, tenure and
merit pay raises.
Are the two purposes ac­tually
disparate?
“ I’m not necessarily con­vinced
the sarrve tool can
accomplish the two," said
Associate Educational
Psychology Professor
Jerry D. Petersen.
The problem, Petersen
said, is that student feed­back
on performance —
formative information, is
different in nature and
goals from administrative
— or summative — evalua­tion
information.
To elicit summative in­formation
on the student
evaluations, questions
should be general and stan­dardized,
with forms easy
and quick to administer.
The goal to gamer infor­mation
with which to make
comparisons among in­structors
To elicit formative infor­mation,
questions should
be specific, flexible and
numerous. The goal: to
garner diagnostic informa­tion
which helps instruc­tors
improve teaching.
The Faculty Evaluation
Council subcommittee, on
which Petersen served,
recommended separating
the two when constructing
evaluation forms. Alter­natives
included using a
two-oirt questionnaire, or
two questionnaires ad­ministered
at different
times.
Confusion of the student
evaluations' two roles
should be avoided, subcom­mittee
members con­cluded.
“Evaluation which is
p r im a r ily for s e lf ­improvement
should not be
combined with that which
is performed for ad­ministrative
decision­making.
The data should be
kept separate, with the in­formation
elicited from
students rega rd in g
diagnostics not employed
when comparative evalua­tion
occurs,” the report
stated
The form a tive *
summative argument
becomes more significant
when related to the percep­tion
at NAU that despite
these problems, the sum­mative
purpose of student
evaluations predominates.
If the summative pur­pose
indeed predominates,
what are the possibilities
that the student
Evaluations,
page 6
Our old typesetting c ralrefraisxd, eydh owrbeeecvceaeriuv,s eewd i wll ne’erwe ydoinug_ . for
NAU has second Truman winner
By Stephen Mark Stern
Contributing Reporter
awAa rdh ifgohr lya spoprhesotmigoiroe uiss tShche olaHrashrirpy S Truman Not only is the award an qinudailciafitcioanti oonfs the superior of the win­dniincag
tisvtue dent, it is also in­at
whicohf tthhee inssttuitduteionnt
For the second time in tThrrueem aynea n,S cNhAoUla rhsahs ipa
aSncdh oAlarriszhoinpa ’ws i1n9n8e3r T. ruman
haWs idninstiningg uthiseh esdc htohlea rTshuicp­son
resident as one of Arizona's snd the nation’s topH
a Trieu mparnoc escshs oolfa br eicso qmuiintge oinrvdoelrv elad, qsuaaildif yB, usnhgee .f irIsnt ohtahde rt oN AcoUn For the NAU to
Upon being selected as tNhAenU ’sc ocmanpdeitdeadte , agBauinngset owtihnnerer s.A Srhiieo nsaaid csohlel ehgaed to complete an academic
She said she thought that
an essay concerning the
federal tax system would
“ I needed something
letters of rtweooo short esssys
cerning a public policy
voHcaetre dw nin nflinatg- taexu ssnyys teamd­that
would allow only one
aconu aldn ailmytpicraolv pe ruopcoenss.” that I
reSadhein gs aaidb ousht et hhe acdu rbreeennt tax system prior to the
She submitted her essay
in the late fall semester.
Two months later, she was
notified that she had been
sfienleaclitsetds. ns one of the three
terAvsi eaw feidn ainli sSta, ne hFer awnacsi sicno­ebsys
aay p taonpeicl .concerning her
“Before winning the
my ‘
that there was inequity in- wal planned eat.
Shelly Bunge. 19, public in vo lv em en t
relations major, is NAU’s achievements
and
Department of Labor's swuobnshils rteepnecael thleev eenlt.i reT IhRiSs Code of 1194.
“I know the tax system I advocate is not a perfect sidyesate man,d b au tc iotm's par odmiffiesree ntot our problems today.”
aofptepr ortunities hnve
coSmhpe lestea idh ers hJeo urpnlaanliss mt o*
in
three years. She then hopes
to find a university that
will offer her both a
master’s degree in public
adzninistrstion and a law
degree. wTahse Tersutmabanl iSschheolda rshbiyp PCornegsriedsse ntot hoHnoar rtrhye laSte. iTsr udmearniv. eTdb tf r$JoPm,0 01in atweraersdt from a *30 million tra* funTdh ein tshceh Uo lSa. rTsrheiapn ryis daceasdigenmeidca lltyo traelwenatredd
ogfo vesruncmceesnsftu wl orcka.reers

Next week:
The Lum berjack
features the
NPPA photo
contest winners.
Viewpoint
ASNAU elections
methods questioned
by concerned
candidate.
Las Vegas
Scramble
Weekend weather
MOKIJf CMNKI|f MM Win­dy,
says the National
Weather Service. Chance
Wof ivhllVoMmwf l t# IMIV Bahirdiv
or Sunday. Highs In the
50a and overnight Iowa In
the 30s.
Sedona conditions
sndV sbrrlaeebzlye. Hcilgohusd Ilnn ethees 4lo0we. 70s end lows In the
A student newspaper serving the Morthern Arizona Community, Flagstaff
Hughes hears gripes
about faculty system
By Kathy Burkel,
Bob Romantic.
Responding in part to
criticism that the universi­ty
administration had not
moved as rapidly as it
might in developing a
system of faculty gover­nance,
NAU President
Eugene M. Hughes ad­dressed
the faculty Friday
afternoon.
Prior to Hughes’ ad­dress,
Sharon Crowley,
Chairperson of the Faculty
Senate, said. “ I have great
respect for President
Hughes but he and 1 dis­agree
on the term, faculty
governance."
She said the faculty has
no power under the
existing constitution for
two reasons. One is that
the faculty does not have a
representative on the
board of regents and must
rely on students to get in­formation.
The other is
that the cen tral ad­ministration
channels in­formation
to the faculty.
Crowley said that the
faculty senate submitted a
proposal to amend certain
portions of the constitution
in January. Three months
have passed, and she said
the senate has not heard
anything from Hughes yet
on that proposal.
"The faculty must have
the first and last words on
academic decisions,” she
said.
Talented faculty don’t
run for the senate, she
added, because they
realize it is an organization
of futility and has no say.
Many faculty members
in the audience responded
to Crowley’s remarks with
a standing ovation.
Hughes did not respond
directly to Crowley’s com­ments,
saying that his role
as a university president
was in fact limited by the
legislature and the Arizona
Board of Regents.
“ I also know that this has
been a difficult year
primarily because of the
many challenges facing us
as an institution and
because of the new direc­tion
that we are taking in
response to these
challenges,” he said.
Hughes then read from a
prepared statement which
focused upon six issues
which he believed were
critical to the future of
NAU and education in
Arizona.
The first issue he ad­dressed
was lib era l
studies.
“ We finally have a
program representing a
m a jo r ity of fa c u lty
opinions and one which 1
am convinced will work,”
he said.
Hughes added that he has
received a number of
proposals to include
courses and disciplines
that have been left out of
the program, but that he
prefers to let the program
work as prescribed.
Hughes then addressed
the new faculty constitu­tion.
Under the new constitu­tion,
the president is in­volved
in the senate as an
ex-officio member rather
than a presiding officer.
Hughes said he supports
this change.
Hughes said he was un­able
to provide the faculty
with good news concerning
his third topic, the budget,
as he would have liked.
‘i t appears that we will
have no merit salary in­creases
for 1983-84,” he
said, “ and the cost of living
increases will not be
available until January 1,
1984. if then.”
Hughes then honored
members of the faculty
who were promoted and
promised that the pay in­creases
that go along with
these promotions will be
administered when funds
are available.
R egarding Hughes'
fourth concern, athletics at
NAU, he said he favors
creating a new National
C o lle g ia te A th le tic
Association-type organiza­tion
for institutions such as
NAU that “ will enable us
to utilize some cost-saving
measures and restore
some degree of sanity to in­tercollegiate
athletics.”
The creation of a new
organization would prevent
schools from making
decisions such as the one
NAU is currently con­sidering
regarding drop­ping
the wrestling program
and replacing it with golf.
Hughes’ fifth topic con­cerned
minority affairs.
“ Our faculty will need to
involve themselves more
directly in the recruitment
and retention of minority
students,” he said.
“ A lre a d y , I have
requested a faculty-staff
group to begin work on the
compilation of data and
will soon appoint a com­mittee
to analyze these
data and p rep are a
recommendation outlining
a s p e c ific program
designed to improve our
minority student profile.”
Hughes said he has taken
the first step regarding the
hiring of minority faculty
by providing the chairs and
deans with prepared equal
opportunity affirmative ac­tion
guidelines for the
faculty f administrative
recruitment and hiring.
His last concern was the
matter of admissions into
NAU.
Hughes said he does not
think NAU should have the
same requirements as
those of Arizona State
University or the Universi­ty
of Arizona because it is a
small university in which
students can retain their
individual identity and
work w ith fa c u lty
members on a one-to-one
basis.
“ NAU can join ASU or U
of A, or NAU can be
different and admit the stu­dent
under different ad­missions
requirements
that would not be lower but
in fact could be higher than
those we have today,”
Hughes said.
“ I am not proposing ad­mitting
any student who is
not admissable at the pre­sent
time. I do not propose
lowering our admission
standards The only ques­tion
is whether we should
raise them to levels which
w ill e ffe c tiv e ly deny
students the opportunity of
r e c e iv in g an N A U
education.”
Hughes said the
legislature is considering
requiring universities to
carry a 22 to one ratio
between faculty and
students. If approved right
now, this proposal would
force NAU to reduce its
faculty by nearly 50
positions.
Hughes said that he has
made a commitment to
every Arizona student in
the top 10 percent of their
graduating class to attend
NAU with a four-year tui­tion
scholarship in order to
raise the academic quality
of the entering freshman
class. He also made the
same commitment to the
top junior student in every
Arizona high school.
Hughes concluded by
asking the faculty for its
understanding and trust as
NAU faced the challenges
ahead. ‘ ‘We face some
tough problems with no
easy solutions ... I will
listen to you, weigh the op­tions
and with all the
wisdom I can muster,
make the decisions which I
believe will be in the best
interests of the univer­sity.”
Meredith Hebden/The Lumberjack On nuclear MADness
The father of the H-bomb, Edward
Teller, placated both breadmakers and
bomb builders Thursday, in a speech
titled “Secrecy and Nuclear Alchemy.”
“Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)
has kept the peace, but It can’t keep the
peace indefinitely on this basis. Few
people can accept a balance of terror,"
he said. Teller’s presentation, spon­sored
by the honors program and the
chemistry department, attracted a
diverse audience that filled the
chemistry building auditorium.
M e rit How do evaluations affect promotions and tenure
E d itor s n ote: The
following is third in a
series offering an in-depth
look at the role of student
evaluations in the overall
NAU faculty evaluation
process. Because of time
and space demands, the
series will be extended to
four parts, the last two
examing how student
evaluations relate — or do
not — to administrative
decision-making about
faculty promotions, tenure
and merit pay.
By Irma Velasco
Contributing Reporter
Given that student
evaluations measure only
the teaching performance
r
component of overall facul­ty
evaluation, just how do
administrators use them
when making retention,
promotion, tenure and
merit pay raise decisions?
Faculty evaluation in­volves
a process of
exam ining a facu lty
member’ s yearly con­tributions
in teaching per­formance,
scholarship and
research, and professional
service, said Academic
Affairs Vice President
Joseph W. Cox.
Questions immediately
arise as to how these
criteria should be weighted
year to year, instructor to
instructor, in a university
Pardon our
transition issDuoen ’ot fb et hael arLmuemdb eifr jtahciks etyqpueipsemtteinntg, and computing ltohoek s different, because The new equipment, Lansetx tw iseseukee nwdi ll,o utoro .o ld wish oiochs odfe tbhuet sm tohsits asduvmamnceerd. tbyrpokees etdtoiwngn aenqdu ipcamuesendt sysBteecmaus saev oaifl athbele p, roblems panic in the office. Luckily, we’we had, we are unable nFelwasgpasptearf, f'Ts he Adriasoilnys ctoo npterisnt tw tinhne erNsP ePnAd thpeh osteo- rDeusUcuye . STuhne, Scoanm per odtou ctoiounr cSotnerdn p’so rste r*1ie Ss teapnh Nena uMtialurks staff anisd gtyivpienng euttsi nai haonudr vsB. forthe e wwointt tfanp pt "
traditionally known as a
"teaching institution.”
A Faculty Evaluation
Council subcommittee
d ra fte d a student
evaluations report last
Stay addressing this issue.
“ The evaluation of
teaching must be part of an
overall system which
possesses, also, an ap­propriate
process for
evaluating research and
service. A specific com­mitment
to their relative
weighting within the total
evaluation process must
occur,” the report stated
Cox acknowledged the
need for flexible weighting
of the criteria
“ With each faculty
member the balance is
different. We’ve got to
have a reward system that
takes this into account, ’ ’ he
said.
The weighting process,
h o w ever, cannot be
routinized, or subjected to
a formula. Cox said. These
decisions belong largely to
college deans, who know
the key d iffe r e n c e s
between departments.
“ A dean will make dis­tinctions
in his or her own
thinking about different
departments based on the
m ission of those
departments,” Cox said.
Arts and Sciences Dean
Charles E. Little, for
example, would consider
the biology department,
w ith its b ach elors,
masters and doctoral
programs, different from
the smaller philosophy or
m odern lan gu ages
departments.
Weighting of the three
evaluative criteria aside,
questions also arise about
the two-fold purpose of the
student evaluations.
Student evaluations
provide instructors with
students’ feedback on their
teaching performance, but
are used also by ad­ministrators
to make
decisions about retention,
promotion, tenure and
merit pay raises.
Are the two purposes ac­tually
disparate?
“ I’m not necessarily con­vinced
the sarrve tool can
accomplish the two," said
Associate Educational
Psychology Professor
Jerry D. Petersen.
The problem, Petersen
said, is that student feed­back
on performance —
formative information, is
different in nature and
goals from administrative
— or summative — evalua­tion
information.
To elicit summative in­formation
on the student
evaluations, questions
should be general and stan­dardized,
with forms easy
and quick to administer.
The goal to gamer infor­mation
with which to make
comparisons among in­structors
To elicit formative infor­mation,
questions should
be specific, flexible and
numerous. The goal: to
garner diagnostic informa­tion
which helps instruc­tors
improve teaching.
The Faculty Evaluation
Council subcommittee, on
which Petersen served,
recommended separating
the two when constructing
evaluation forms. Alter­natives
included using a
two-oirt questionnaire, or
two questionnaires ad­ministered
at different
times.
Confusion of the student
evaluations' two roles
should be avoided, subcom­mittee
members con­cluded.
“Evaluation which is
p r im a r ily for s e lf ­improvement
should not be
combined with that which
is performed for ad­ministrative
decision­making.
The data should be
kept separate, with the in­formation
elicited from
students rega rd in g
diagnostics not employed
when comparative evalua­tion
occurs,” the report
stated
The form a tive *
summative argument
becomes more significant
when related to the percep­tion
at NAU that despite
these problems, the sum­mative
purpose of student
evaluations predominates.
If the summative pur­pose
indeed predominates,
what are the possibilities
that the student
Evaluations,
page 6
Our old typesetting c ralrefraisxd, eydh owrbeeecvceaeriuv,s eewd i wll ne’erwe ydoinug_ . for
NAU has second Truman winner
By Stephen Mark Stern
Contributing Reporter
awAa rdh ifgohr lya spoprhesotmigoiroe uiss tShche olaHrashrirpy S Truman Not only is the award an qinudailciafitcioanti oonfs the superior of the win­dniincag
tisvtue dent, it is also in­at
whicohf tthhee inssttuitduteionnt
For the second time in tThrrueem aynea n,S cNhAoUla rhsahs ipa
aSncdh oAlarriszhoinpa ’ws i1n9n8e3r T. ruman
haWs idninstiningg uthiseh esdc htohlea rTshuicp­son
resident as one of Arizona's snd the nation’s topH
a Trieu mparnoc escshs oolfa br eicso qmuiintge oinrvdoelrv elad, qsuaaildif yB, usnhgee .f irIsnt ohtahde rt oN AcoUn For the NAU to
Upon being selected as tNhAenU ’sc ocmanpdeitdeadte , agBauinngset owtihnnerer s.A Srhiieo nsaaid csohlel ehgaed to complete an academic
She said she thought that
an essay concerning the
federal tax system would
“ I needed something
letters of rtweooo short esssys
cerning a public policy
voHcaetre dw nin nflinatg- taexu ssnyys teamd­that
would allow only one
aconu aldn ailmytpicraolv pe ruopcoenss.” that I
reSadhein gs aaidb ousht et hhe acdu rbreeennt tax system prior to the
She submitted her essay
in the late fall semester.
Two months later, she was
notified that she had been
sfienleaclitsetds. ns one of the three
terAvsi eaw feidn ainli sSta, ne hFer awnacsi sicno­ebsys
aay p taonpeicl .concerning her
“Before winning the
my ‘
that there was inequity in- wal planned eat.
Shelly Bunge. 19, public in vo lv em en t
relations major, is NAU’s achievements
and
Department of Labor's swuobnshils rteepnecael thleev eenlt.i reT IhRiSs Code of 1194.
“I know the tax system I advocate is not a perfect sidyesate man,d b au tc iotm's par odmiffiesree ntot our problems today.”
aofptepr ortunities hnve
coSmhpe lestea idh ers hJeo urpnlaanliss mt o*
in
three years. She then hopes
to find a university that
will offer her both a
master’s degree in public
adzninistrstion and a law
degree. wTahse Tersutmabanl iSschheolda rshbiyp PCornegsriedsse ntot hoHnoar rtrhye laSte. iTsr udmearniv. eTdb tf r$JoPm,0 01in atweraersdt from a *30 million tra* funTdh ein tshceh Uo lSa. rTsrheiapn ryis daceasdigenmeidca lltyo traelwenatredd
ogfo vesruncmceesnsftu wl orcka.reers